Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet. 2021 January 9; Volume 397; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32520-4
Juan-Giner A, Kimathi D, Grantz KH, Hamaluba M, Kazooba P, et al.
Lancet. 2021 January 9; Volume 397; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32520-4
BACKGROUND
Stocks of yellow fever vaccine are insufficient to cover exceptional demands for outbreak response. Fractional dosing has shown efficacy, but evidence is limited to the 17DD substrain vaccine. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of one-fifth fractional dose compared with standard dose of four WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines produced from three substrains.
METHODS
We did this randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at research centres in Mbarara, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya. Eligible participants were aged 18–59 years, had no contraindications for vaccination, were not pregnant or lactating, had no history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and did not require yellow fever vaccination for travel. Eligible participants were recruited from communities and randomly assigned to one of eight groups, corresponding to the four vaccines at standard or fractional dose. The vaccine was administered subcutaneously by nurses who were not masked to treatment, but participants and other study personnel were masked to vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with seroconversion 28 days after vaccination. Seroconversion was defined as post-vaccination neutralising antibody titres at least 4 times pre-vaccination measurement measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50). We defined non-inferiority as less than 10% decrease in seroconversion in fractional compared with standard dose groups 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was measured in the per-protocol population, and safety analyses included all vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 6, 2017, and Feb 21, 2018, 1029 participants were assessed for inclusion. 69 people were ineligible, and 960 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to vaccine manufacturer and dose (120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz standard dose, 120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz fractional dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides standard dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides fractional dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar standard dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar fractional dose, 120 to Sanofi Pasteur standard dose, and 120 to Sanofi Pasteur fractional dose). 49 participants had detectable PRNT50 at baseline and 11 had missing PRNT50 results at baseline or 28 days. 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis. 959 participants were included in the safety analysis. The absolute difference in seroconversion between fractional and standard doses by vaccine was 1·71% (95% CI -2·60 to 5·28) for Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz, -0·90% (–4·24 to 3·13) for Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides, 1·82% (–2·75 to 5·39) for Institut Pasteur Dakar, and 0·0% (–3·32 to 3·29) for Sanofi Pasteur. Fractional doses from all four vaccines met the non-inferiority criterion. The most common treatment-related adverse events were headache (22·2%), fatigue (13·7%), myalgia (13·3%) and self-reported fever (9·0%). There were no study-vaccine related serious adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines were non-inferior to the standard dose in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination, with no major safety concerns. These results support the use of fractional dosage in the general adult population for outbreak response in situations of vaccine shortage.
Stocks of yellow fever vaccine are insufficient to cover exceptional demands for outbreak response. Fractional dosing has shown efficacy, but evidence is limited to the 17DD substrain vaccine. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of one-fifth fractional dose compared with standard dose of four WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines produced from three substrains.
METHODS
We did this randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at research centres in Mbarara, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya. Eligible participants were aged 18–59 years, had no contraindications for vaccination, were not pregnant or lactating, had no history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and did not require yellow fever vaccination for travel. Eligible participants were recruited from communities and randomly assigned to one of eight groups, corresponding to the four vaccines at standard or fractional dose. The vaccine was administered subcutaneously by nurses who were not masked to treatment, but participants and other study personnel were masked to vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with seroconversion 28 days after vaccination. Seroconversion was defined as post-vaccination neutralising antibody titres at least 4 times pre-vaccination measurement measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50). We defined non-inferiority as less than 10% decrease in seroconversion in fractional compared with standard dose groups 28 days after vaccination. The primary outcome was measured in the per-protocol population, and safety analyses included all vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 6, 2017, and Feb 21, 2018, 1029 participants were assessed for inclusion. 69 people were ineligible, and 960 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to vaccine manufacturer and dose (120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz standard dose, 120 to Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz fractional dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides standard dose, 120 to Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides fractional dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar standard dose, 120 to Institut Pasteur Dakar fractional dose, 120 to Sanofi Pasteur standard dose, and 120 to Sanofi Pasteur fractional dose). 49 participants had detectable PRNT50 at baseline and 11 had missing PRNT50 results at baseline or 28 days. 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis. 959 participants were included in the safety analysis. The absolute difference in seroconversion between fractional and standard doses by vaccine was 1·71% (95% CI -2·60 to 5·28) for Bio-Manguinhos-Fiocruz, -0·90% (–4·24 to 3·13) for Chumakov Institute of Poliomyelitis and Viral Encephalitides, 1·82% (–2·75 to 5·39) for Institut Pasteur Dakar, and 0·0% (–3·32 to 3·29) for Sanofi Pasteur. Fractional doses from all four vaccines met the non-inferiority criterion. The most common treatment-related adverse events were headache (22·2%), fatigue (13·7%), myalgia (13·3%) and self-reported fever (9·0%). There were no study-vaccine related serious adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Fractional doses of all WHO-prequalified yellow fever vaccines were non-inferior to the standard dose in inducing seroconversion 28 days after vaccination, with no major safety concerns. These results support the use of fractional dosage in the general adult population for outbreak response in situations of vaccine shortage.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Lancet Global Health. 2023 February 1; Volume 11 (Issue 2); e296-e300.; DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00479-X
Abouyannis M, Esmail H, Hamaluba M, Ngama M, Mwangudzah H, et al.
Lancet Global Health. 2023 February 1; Volume 11 (Issue 2); e296-e300.; DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00479-X
Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. A globally representative group of key stakeholders came together to reach consensus on a globally relevant set of core outcome measurements. Outcome domains and outcome measurement instruments were identified through searching the literature and a systematic review of snakebite clinical trials. Outcome domains were shortlisted by use of a questionnaire and consensus was reached among stakeholders and the patient group through facilitated discussions and voting. Five universal core outcome measures should be included in all future snakebite clinical trials-mortality, WHO disability assessment scale, patient-specific functional scale, acute allergic reaction by Brown criteria, and serum sickness by formal criteria. Additional syndrome-specific core outcome measures should be used depending on the biting species. This core outcome measurement set provides global standardisation, supports the priorities of patients and clinicians, enables meta-analysis, and is appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income settings.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Med Trop Sante Int
MTSI
MTSI bulletin
MTSI magazine
MTSI-Revue
Médecine tropicale et santé internationale. Bulletin
Médecine tropicale et santé internationale. Magazine
MTSI, la revue de la Société francophone de médecine tropicale et santé internationale. 2023 February 1; Volume 3 (Issue 3); DOI:10.48327/mtsi.v3i3.2023.421
Abouyannis M, Esmail H, Hamaluba M, Ngama M, Mwangudzah H, et al.
Med Trop Sante Int
MTSI
MTSI bulletin
MTSI magazine
MTSI-Revue
Médecine tropicale et santé internationale. Bulletin
Médecine tropicale et santé internationale. Magazine
MTSI, la revue de la Société francophone de médecine tropicale et santé internationale. 2023 February 1; Volume 3 (Issue 3); DOI:10.48327/mtsi.v3i3.2023.421
English
Français
CONTEXTE
Les essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent ont souvent utilisé des critères de décision hétérogènes qui demandent à être standardisés.
MÉTHODE
Un groupe d'acteurs clés mondialement représentatifs s'est réuni pour parvenir à un consensus sur un jeu universel de critères de décision de base. Les domaines d'intérêt et les instruments d'évaluation des critères de décision ont été identifiés à partir d'une recherche documentaire et d'un examen systématique des essais cliniques concernant les envenimations par morsure de serpent. Les domaines d'intérêt ont été présélectionnés à l'aide d'un questionnaire et un consensus a été obtenu entre le groupe d'acteurs et un groupe représentatif de patients à la suite de discussions orientées et d'un vote.
RÉSULTATS
Cinq critères de décision de base universels devraient être inclus dans tous les futurs essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent : la mortalité, l'échelle d'évaluation du handicap de l'OMS, l'échelle fonctionnelle propre à chaque patient, la réaction allergique immédiate selon les critères de Brown et la maladie sérique en fonction de critères formels. D'autres critères de décision spécifiques aux différents syndromes observés lors des envenimations par morsure de serpent doivent être utilisés en fonction de l'espèce responsable de la morsure.
CONCLUSION
Ce jeu universel de critères de décision de base permet une standardisation mondiale, répond aux priorités des patients et des cliniciens, favorise des méta-analyses et est compatible avec une utilisation dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire.
Les essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent ont souvent utilisé des critères de décision hétérogènes qui demandent à être standardisés.
MÉTHODE
Un groupe d'acteurs clés mondialement représentatifs s'est réuni pour parvenir à un consensus sur un jeu universel de critères de décision de base. Les domaines d'intérêt et les instruments d'évaluation des critères de décision ont été identifiés à partir d'une recherche documentaire et d'un examen systématique des essais cliniques concernant les envenimations par morsure de serpent. Les domaines d'intérêt ont été présélectionnés à l'aide d'un questionnaire et un consensus a été obtenu entre le groupe d'acteurs et un groupe représentatif de patients à la suite de discussions orientées et d'un vote.
RÉSULTATS
Cinq critères de décision de base universels devraient être inclus dans tous les futurs essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent : la mortalité, l'échelle d'évaluation du handicap de l'OMS, l'échelle fonctionnelle propre à chaque patient, la réaction allergique immédiate selon les critères de Brown et la maladie sérique en fonction de critères formels. D'autres critères de décision spécifiques aux différents syndromes observés lors des envenimations par morsure de serpent doivent être utilisés en fonction de l'espèce responsable de la morsure.
CONCLUSION
Ce jeu universel de critères de décision de base permet une standardisation mondiale, répond aux priorités des patients et des cliniciens, favorise des méta-analyses et est compatible avec une utilisation dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire.